Films and Men

I saw Catch Me If You Can today. It is a truly excellent film that I deeply loved. It managed to avoid being either The Fugitive or a film like Silence of the Lambs, where the focus is on a hero tracking down a villain. Instead both the kid and the FBI agent were deeply real characters who were both rivals and friends. Best of all, there was no emphasis at all on what the kid did being wrong (which I liked, since defrauding large corporations is at worst a very minor wrong in my book :) Instead, it was far more about a contest between the two people.

reive has suggested that a new trend in films is for them to focus on the emotions of men. I now agree completely. In the 80s to the mid 90s there were films about the emotions of women and films about men that were either comedies or action/violence flicks. This film is neither. I'm uncertain how I feel about this trend, because allowing men to have emotions on film is obviously a good thing, but it's always straight white men and the examples I've seen (like this one) effectively had no women in it. Between that trend and the new and equally wretched series of trailers (ranging from a deeply horrid and juvenile comedy called Old School to some seriously wretched-looking horror films, I worry that we're headed back to the regressive nastiness 80s at a fast clip, only this time we are coming off of the pseudo-liberal 90s and not the actual liberality of the 70s, ugh.

In any case, I've only seen a handful of films that treated men and women's emotions equally and well and far too many of these were queer or otherwise seriously fringe films. Once again, TV manages to be more progressive - I definitely agree with various critiques that suggest that television often contains some of the cutting edge of modern thought while film is far more mainstream, simply because of the far greater risks involved in making an unsuccessful film, while TV programing is a never-ending quest to find something new and interesting to fill up the schedule.

After the film, imester and I talked more about The Two Towers, the more I think about that film, the more morally repugnant I find it. In the 70s, Sauron and his allies were interpreted as evil industrialists intent on conquering the world, destroying all beauty in their never-ending quest to destroy the natural world and turn all living things to their own purposes. Christopher Lee did a wonderful job of portraying that, but the rest of the film went completely against that. Instead, this is a books about total war and the other side has no motives other than genocide. This makes them both less interesting and (for me) makes the conflict seem far more like a cardboard construct. Then again, imester made the point that in the modern era, someone who wishes to conquer a land to enslave the people and wring everything of value out of the land is not an evil darklord, it's the CEO of a multinational corporation (which IMHO is generally a sub-species of darklord, but this was clearly not the message any of the large corporations putting up money for this film wished to see).

Instead, we have evil for evil's sake and armies of testosterone-filled men intent on protecting their women and children instead of the people and nature itself rising up against those who would despoil the land. I can definitely see why the war-mongers and right-wing zealots love this film. It clearly wasn't made by right-wing zealots, but it fits into their agenda quite nicely.

In any case, go see Catch Me If You Can, Tom Hanks does a typically wonderful job and Leonardo DiCaprio is actually very good. One odd note, was realizing about halfway through the film, that I'd actually seen the main character (Frank) speak on a talk show (Tonight Show) back in the late 70s. I remembered some of the stories he told on that show, when I saw versions of the same story in the film. Given that he only ended up doing 4 years in prison, he did quite well for himself. It deeply pleases me to know that non-violent crime against the system can pay extremely well.

:) It most definitely is, I really liked the complex and interesting interactions between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, and would likely have enjoyed the parts with Meri, Pippin, and the Ents even more if it had been longer and if they hadn't screwed up the ends. The interactions between Frodo and Sam were very much about the emotions of men. However, the remainder and majority of the film was (for me) a dull and annoying war film. I suppose there were emotions in that portion, but I missed many of them behind the posturing.

Because, after all, the emotion of wanting to protect others, wage war, or be involved with politics, conflict, or strength aren't real emotions of men, because they don't promote men as soft, cuddly, loving things who wouldn't hurt a flea?

Here's a big ol' news flash: The right-wingers and war hawks have emotions too, despite your denigration. They're quite as valid emotions as yours, and frankly have a lot longer record of getting things done. (I'm really resisting saying, "Because I don't suck dick, my emotions are less valid than yours?" Ah, hell, might as well get it out now.)

Tolkien himself went on to say that equating Isengard and Sauron as "big industrialists" wasn't the point -- Sauron is pretty much straight-up unnuanced genocidal evil for its own sake. He just is. Trying ro reinterpret the story for your own purposes puts you in the same box as the unsavouries, doesn't it? Its not about the happy greens fighting off Genentech, its not the Allies vs the Nazis, its about people (men and women, or did Eowyn suddenly drop her tits?) fighting for their very lives against a vast darkness. If its men riding off to battle with sword in hand more than anyone else, just think that its mainly manly men who'll be dying by the thousands in compensation.

Because, after all, the emotion of wanting to protect others, wage war, or be involved with politics, conflict, or strength aren't real emotions of men, because they don't promote men as soft, cuddly, loving things who wouldn't hurt a flea?

Fair enough, except that I saw much of those scenes as being about the glory and honor of war as about the emotions of those involved and I have no patience with such foolishness.

its about people (men and women, or did Eowyn suddenly drop her tits?)

Except that Eowyn in the novel was a warrior. In the film she was a chick with a sword who mooned hopelessly over Aragorn. It was very sad to see a film made in 2001 be less egalitarian in any way than a novel written more than 50 years ago.

Honour, glory -- these things aren't based on some of the strongest emotions in the human psyche? What is honour and glory if not emotion? There's no way to separate them. They might not be emotions you value, but they're certainly powerful emotions that, obviously, not just men feel strongly about, or Two Towers wouldn't be pushing well over $250mil in profits.

Eowyn's time isn't yet in the context of film pacing. We've set the scene for her Big Shot in Return of the King. She didn't do much in the novel until then, either, frankly -- there's no way to build them up with her as a great warrior, since she was told to do pretty much what she did in TTT: take care of the people and see to their safety and organization while her father and brothers took the immediate risk. When her Big Scene comes up, its all the more important because she's, in some sense, committing a transgressive act which casts her character into sharp relief. One of the things novel-Aragorn learns in Rohan is the proper way of being a king in hard times, and about devotion to your people. Eowyn is part of that education.

Aah, the two towers was written back in a time when you could talk about Duty and Honour without there being a bad taste in your mouth.

The Lord of the Rings his highly archetypal, with Sauron stuck right in the middle as "The One Who Wants To Destroy Everything That He Cannot Control". Against such an enemy, of course the "good guys" come across as fairly two-dimensional, primarily because they come from a world where there is Good and there is Evil and one of them is shiny and the other one is horrific.

Tolkein was deliberately creating a mythos, and as such it's a pretty darn black and white one (especially when it comes to the direct creations of the Maiar - humans, hobbits and the other lesser folk get to be more wishy-washy, be corruptible and have moral failings, while Elves cannot help but be good and Orcs cannot help but be evil).

I completely agree with you about Catch Me If You Can. I had no particular expectations for it, and was quite pleasantly surprised. I saw it the day after I saw Gangs of New York, and couldn't quite believe that I preferred a film by Spielberg to one by Scorsese. Especially after AI & to a lesser degree, Minority Report. But the characters in Catch Me were more sympathetic and rang more true, the conflict was more interesting (aside from the depiction of the complex social reactions to the Civil War in the North--I'm glad I saw Gangs, but only because of the premise and setting--and Daniel Day Lewis--not because of the main plot line in the least), and refreshingly violence free. It is quite jarring when Handratty pulls a gun at various points. And the delightful reference to Bond films, including the use of "The Look of Love" tickled me.

I see this film in the context of various recent films that deal with the question of identity. The Truth about Charlie, The Bourne Identity, and at least one other I am blanking on at the moment, have (male) main characters who have a plethora of identies, and are struggling to discover what--if any--is their authentic character.

And, of course, the plot of Catch Me is quite similar in many ways to the fairly atrocious Blow with Johnny Depp. Both deal with real life stories of successful, young (white male) criminals & their relationship with their parents, especially their Fathers. Well, I did enjoy watching Blow; it was all worth it for the scene where the two main drug runners are looking for room in their apartment to stash their latest take of money. Every cupboard and drawer is absolutely full of bills. But in Blow, there was an unambiguous thread of misogyny or at least distrust of women. All the women in this character's life abandon him in some way: his mother, his wife, his daughter. It was clear the the script was based on the real person's view of the events of his life, and he saw the women as betraying him with little introspection as to why the women might have been motivated to do so. His wife dies, for gracious' sake!

I actually enjoyed both A.I. and Minority Report, which I find rather shocking given I loathe most Spielberg films. I found A.I. to be a flawed but deeply interesting film. Minority Report was fluff, but it was interesting fluff that was well done. I completely agree that Catch Me If You Can was a considerably better film than either of them.

I haven't seen Blow or either of the two films about identity that you mentioned. Would you recommend either The Bourne Identity or The Truth About Charlie?

I haven't seen Blow or either of the two films about identity that you mentioned. Would you recommend either The Bourne Identity or The Truth About Charlie?

Of the two, I would recommend The Truth About Charlie. It's use of flashback and speculative flash-forwards was refreshing. It also fits the Alison Bechdel criteria of having multiple women who have at least one conversation with one another about something other than a man. :) Charlie is a fun romp. It is full of allusions and homages to French New Wave Cinema. If you are a die-hard fan of either the original Charade or Goddard et al, don't get your hopes up that it will reach either of those (very different) heights, but I found it charming. Thandie Newton was excellent in the role, IMO. Hard shoes to fill, are Audrey's, and Thandie did a fine job.

The Bourne Identity had some good performances (I just dig Marky Mark, don't hold it against me--at least not unless you've seen The Big Hit.) but it's fairly standard Hollywood action-hero fantasy. I found it worth it to spend a little time with Moritz Bleibtreu of Run Lola Run.

You realize of course that The Lord of the Rings is no more about environmentalism than it is about 9/11. That you prefer that interpretation is fair enough, but I'm not sure why you would fault others for coming away from the films with a diffeernt interpretation. Tolkien himself felt his books had multifarious applicabality and the fact that its fans run the gamut is proof, I think, that they aren't simplistic at all.

That said, The Lord of the Rings exists in a world in which good and evil are clearly defined. Evil requires no explanation. To expect it to is to look for something that neither the books nor the movies can provides. Like them or not is fine with me (I never much liked them as a child), but I think it a bit unfair to expect them to support some kind of 1970s-inspired left wing agenda that is no more there than warmongering right wing agenda of the current era.

You realize of course that The Lord of the Rings is no more about environmentalism than it is about 9/11. That you prefer that interpretation is fair enough, but I'm not sure why you would fault others for coming away from the films with a diffeernt interpretation.

I'm not complaining as much about viewer's interpretation of the film as much as about the interpretation of the people who made the film. They forgrounded the war elements, turned the ents into just another set of soldiers and (at least with Eowyn) made the film more sexist. I have essentially the same interpreation of this film as many right-wing folk who watched it, the difference is that I don't like those ideas.

Well, fair enough. I think you're making it out to be far bigger a deal than it is, but then, as we both know, I don't share your concerns about the morality of war or the portrayal of it in literature, so I'm probably not the best judge of these things. As for Eowyn, I have mixed feelings on the issue. I suspect that the director made the dramatic decision to downplay her warrior-ness in this film in order to effect a transformation in The Return of the King, just as he decided to make Merry and Pippin more yokel-like than they are in the books for similar reasons. Until I see the whole series, it'll be hard to judge the merits of it.

hmm, i think i do have to agree that the books themselves portray Sauron and Co. as Evil that has no motivation or explanation. so, in that context, the reasonable response is to fight back with Honor and Glory. The dangerous part, i think, occurs if/when people translate that into the real world--where there is *very* rarely intrinsic, unmotivated Evil. And so, with *real* people, war is never about honor and glory--it is about killing real human beings. Even if end result of the war is an increase in justice in the world, it's still real people on both sides being killed... in the movie, the Uruk-Hai are, ostensibly, not really real, and thus the only danger is in dying, not in killing...

I kind of wanted the movie to go back to those 12-year-olds who were being sent into battle at Helm's Deep--but i guess movies are better at showing scared, living 12-year-olds than showing 12-year-old corpses.

an interesting element is that, taken as a whole, all of the fighting is actually relatively incidental to the whole thrust of the books. The final outcome hinges on Frodo and the ring, and all the battle will eventually become moot: either Sauron will get the ring and prevail no matter how effectively people have fought him off previously, or else the ring will be destroyed and Sauron will fall and the people will eventually prevail (as long as they haven't been *entirely* slaughtered, but there's a lot of people between Rohan and the entire population of Middle Earth). so, despite all the fighting, the Two Towers seems to be the lull in the story, between the beginning of Frodo's quest and the time when he actually has the power to destroy the ring... or it's the part of the story when everyone else is trying to distract Sauron's attention so Frodo can get the ring into Mordor.

I kind of wanted the movie to go back to those 12-year-olds who were being sent into battle at Helm's Deep--but i guess movies are better at showing scared, living 12-year-olds than showing 12-year-old corpses.

I completely agree, there were scenes of glowing triumph at the end and not the scenes of dead children and screaming injured that I would have far preferred. I hated the glorification of war present in that film.

an interesting element is that, taken as a whole, all of the fighting is actually relatively incidental to the whole thrust of the books. The final outcome hinges on Frodo and the ring, and all the battle will eventually become moot: either Sauron will get the ring and prevail no matter how effectively people have fought him off previously, or else the ring will be destroyed and Sauron will fall and the people will eventually prevail (as long as they haven't been *entirely* slaughtered, but there's a lot of people between Rohan and the entire population of Middle Earth). so, despite all the fighting, the Two Towers seems to be the lull in the story, between the beginning of Frodo's quest and the time when he actually has the power to destroy the ring... or it's the part of the story when everyone else is trying to distract Sauron's attention so Frodo can get the ring into Mordor.

I completely agree. I haven't read the series in decades, but IIRC, the battle of Helms Deep wasn't any sort of climatic tide-turning battle. However, it was very much the climactic focus of the film. The novel had plenty of war in it, but it didn't foreground battle and this film did, in a particularly noxious way.

heh--i had been so interested in the Battle of Helm's Deep for a particular reason (i have a really hard time visualizing Tolkein's writing, so I was really interested in the logistics and tactics of the visual representation of it) that i didn't quite notice the imbalance as an imbalance per se... but yeah, i don't remember the battle being quite so foregrounded in the book.

and the movie *way* underplayed the ents, i thought. for starters, because the ents are SOOOOOOO COOL. but also because the ents' destruction of Isengard *is* a much more key turning point than Helm's Deep, since the ent's single-rootedly take out the most powerful player in the whole thing next to Sauron. and they got *such* minimal screen play, plus their whole decision process was quite different than was shown in the movie, plus they did *not* look impressive enough coming out of the forest--they were supposed to look as if the the whole forest itself was rising up to take out Isengard, and instead it looks like a scattered little copse of trees.

but battles are visually rich and hence well-suited for movies. ents talking and hobbits drinking entwater and growing six inches are, i guess, less visually exciting...

and women! i don't even *bother* trying to come to terms with the role of women in the trilogy, just because there were so few women in such a large cast of men... i pretty much just accept it as a product of the time and the author, recognize that there's really nothing you could significantly change about it anyway (imo, the portrayal of Eowyn in the two towers felt reasonably accurate to the book--in the book, she whined about not being able to fight and mooned after aragorn and, after protest, took the women and children to helm's deep, which is pretty much what she did in the movie), and appreciate more recent fantasy writers, male and female, who know and care about women and have good female characters. you'd have to change the whole books' structure to give women a significantly meaningful role. *shrug* in the meanwhile, i'll just enjoy the homoeroticism that arises from having a 90% male cast of characters...

and the movie *way* underplayed the ents, i thought. for starters, because the ents are SOOOOOOO COOL. but also because the ents' destruction of Isengard *is* a much more key turning point than Helm's Deep, since the ent's single-rootedly take out the most powerful player in the whole thing next to Sauron. and they got *such* minimal screen play, plus their whole decision process was quite different than was shown in the movie, plus they did *not* look impressive enough coming out of the forest--they were supposed to look as if the the whole forest itself was rising up to take out Isengard, and instead it looks like a scattered little copse of trees.

Exactly! We got lots of battle and very little with the Ents. I would have especially liked them to have called up the trees like they did in the books. I barely remember the battle of Helms Deep and vividly remember some of the interactions with the Ents. In part, this is simply based on the sorts of things I'm interested in, but in part it is because this film choose to focus more on human warriors than on nature rising against those who would destroy it. In a nutshell, that sums up why I disliked the film so much.

I find TTT to be tremendously _anti_-war, but I don't have the energy for the discussion right now.

As to films about the emotions of men and how this only seems to happen in films without women, I would argue that this reflects the natural order of the world to some degree as many many men I've known, many many of my male lovers (and yes, even the very straight ones) have told me that their most honest, deepest emotions are for their male friends. "I can't be in love with women without resenting them," they would say and then tell me how much they loved their male friends.

I find TTT to be tremendously _anti_-war, but I don't have the energy for the discussion right now.

When you feel up to it, I'd very much like to hear your reasons and ideas on this. Much of my reaction to this film is likely from the mixture of horror and boredom with which I view all films or TV shows about large battles and the details of warfare.

As to films about the emotions of men and how this only seems to happen in films without women, I would argue that this reflects the natural order of the world to some degree as many many men I've known, many many of my male lovers (and yes, even the very straight ones) have told me that their most honest, deepest emotions are for their male friends. "I can't be in love with women without resenting them," they would say and then tell me how much they loved their male friends.

I think that instead of it being "even the straight male ones", it's likely to be more accurate to say "especially the straight male ones", since I've not seen these attitudes to be true with many of the bi men I've know. The only gay men I've known who felt like this were separatist types like some of the Radical Faeries I've met, who are far from typical in most of their responses.

However, I've heard such statements before from straight men (and some bi men), and am perfectly willing (if also somewhat horrified and puzzled) to believe these attitudes are common. However, these attitudes make absolutely no sense to me.

Most of my friends have always been women, and while I now have several of close male friends now (and even a few straight male friends, although none who are incredibly close) I haven't noticed any significant gender difference in my friendships. Then again, I'm far enough off of any sort of standard of male thought or behavior to render any comparisons or analogies fairly useless.

If most men actually feel that way, it makes me extremely happy to be be quite separate from any model of masculinity and reduces my desire to have much to do with straight men. Gods, gender relations are wretched and screwed up in our society...

It's interesting, I was talking with imester, Charles, and Barry about TTT tonight and Imester brought up a useful point. Clearly this is quite a good film (if one I have some serious problems with) because I'm still talking about it, unlike say Reign of Fire (the most recent truly horrible film I've seen) which I watched, complained briefly about, and then promptly forgot.

Aragorn, the hero, did not WANT Theoden to retreat to Helm's Deep. Aragorn didn't want that last stand. Aragorn thought Theoden's honor and glory rah rah was idiocy that unnecessarily endangered the Rohirrim as a whole.

I need to see it again, because this conflict isn't central--it's part of Jackson's thrust to raise the stakes at the Battle of Helm's Deep, to give it more of a punch and to make the emotional stakes higher, which worked and didn't work, and might not have been as necessary as maybe he thought it was. And I agree--some of the triumph and the glory could have been tempered a bit at the end. But this is merely the first big victory of the one side in the war; there's plenty of time for uglinesses to come, and I at least still trust Jackson.

Aragorn decides to fight with the Rohirrim almost out of desperation--what else is he going to do? Where else is he going to go? What other good is conceivable at that moment? He has a fit of rage and depression in the armory at the overwhelming and unbeatable odds; Theoden lectures him on morale--which, you know, is mildly important in such circumstances, illusory and even deceptive to 12-year-old swordsboys though it might be--I just don't see how you can read this movie as blindly as the right-wing critics. It's far more complex than you're giving it credit for, in its attitudes towards war and fighting, and again: there's 1/3 left to go.

And how you (and the right-wing critics) can fail to read the Uruk-Hai army as an overwhelmingly mechanized, inherently industrial, thoroughly modern conquering army roaring over a tiny band of rag-tag folk fighting to preserve their archaic customs and way of life...

He did screw the pooch on the ents. No arguments there. Should have trusted his material; should have structured it better; should have gone with deep conversation with trees and not so much with the fightin'. (The ents, properly used, could have served some of the same purpose as the elves-are-leaving flashback-montage, which wasn't really all THAT necessary.) (But I'm Monday-morning quarterbacking, here. I mean, he also fucked up Faramir to no good end I can see. Again--1/3 left, there might well be a point I'm missing--but still.)

But morally repugnant? Only in the sense that he's dealing with a Manichean system, and John--that comes straight from the source material. (Which you know. But you're more than little Manichean yourself, sometimes.)

There have been many well stated comments on this subject. So now I'll add my poorly stated comments:

Don't forget that LOTR is based on Nordic Saga. As such one would expect to find a lack of meaningful female characters, a lot of violence and the idea of honor and glory at the forefront. I can't repeat this enough. If you are looking for modern interpretation of Nordic Saga (and you don't just spurt over the idea of killing the furiners) you are going to have problems with the morality and message. Enjoy it for what it is.

That said, I find that the movies thus far are incredibly faithful given the length of said books and the shortness of time available to films. Yeah, I've got my quibbles with some of their decisions (see: Lothlorien over Tom Bombadil, changing the whole Ent thing in a way that made them seem much less scary/weird/dangerous to me than the book, etc.). But I still find this to be the most faithful (while still being good) adaptation of book that I've yet seen.

On an entirely seperate note:

The "I can't love a woman...." (pardon the misquote, work = can't open many windows = may be fucking up from memory here) is the most atrocious thing I've ever heard. I don't, however, believe that is prevelant in hetguy world. Even the most mysoginistic, hateful, bigoted people I've known (and I've known a lot due to work) view their SOs as different than other women. I'm guessing that you have been associating with some seriously psychologically disturbed people to have heard that so often. At least I hope so. I really, really hope so because if I start running into that I am going to have to become a hermit.

And finally, going totally off the subject(s) at hand:

blueheron - I find your LJ to be bizarrely compelling. Keep up the good work.

There were some choices made in the movie that I seriously didn't like. Then again, there were others that I really liked. I haven't mentioned the scenes with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum much in part because I thought they were exceptionally well done (leaving out messing things up with Faramir for no obvious reason).

blueheron - I find your LJ to be bizarrely compelling. Keep up the good work.

Thank you, I don't think that I've ever been called bizarrely compelling before. Any idea why my journal is like this?

I don't really know. Maybe it will come to me eventually. Usually I have no interest in other people's personal writings - I'd rather speak in person. You often touch on things I'm vaguely interested in, or not so vaguely. I call it bizarrely compelling because I find it bizarre to find something compelling. Much like "King of the Hill", except that while compelling, "king..." is also repulsive (I'm trying to say that your LJ is NOT repulsive). If I ever get a better handle on it I'll let you know